“It would be childish to disguise the fact that the institution of marriage has entered upon a critical phase; philosophers and novelists lay odds on the complete disappearance of the institution. In this, perhaps, they go too far. But it is none the less true that it is a matter of profound interest and importance to reform the institution of marriage. Granted this, how shall we begin?
“The entrance into marriage must be made as easy as possible; in this way the number of marriages which are based upon love will rapidly increase. Then, the married pair must have equal rights, equal duties, and equal responsibilities; in this way marriage will become more practical and less immoral than it is at present. Finally—and this is the most important of all—it is necessary to facilitate divorce. Divorce will then become the worthy separation of two thinking beings, and will no longer be the disgusting comedy that it is at the present day.
“For those determined to live apart, for those whose morals are loose, indissoluble marriage itself is no longer a bond. Absolute freedom is no hindrance to conjugal fidelity and constancy; on the contrary, freedom is the cause of constancy.
“Divorce is not happiness, but it is a help towards happiness. For two human beings who hate one another to continue to live together is a much greater evil than divorce. Certainly it would be preferable if husband and wife could continue to love one another as they did during the first days of their married life; that they should love their children and be honoured by them. But since humanity is not free from faults and vices, this does not always happen. Divorce, as we wish for it, makes marriage worthier and more profound. Such marriages will be better suited to the new social movements and to the modern spirit.
“The civil equality of the two sexes must be a fundamental principle of modern law. The French Civil Code already recognizes for both sexes equal rights in some respects; but the wife still loses a certain portion of her rights in the moment that she marries. She is in fact rendered incapable of business. The contrast between the incapacity for business of the married woman and the capacity for business of the unmarried is one of the characteristic traits of our legislation.
“Divorce, as it now exists, contradicts the indissolubility of the marriage bond demanded by the Church. Adultery should only be regarded as a ground for divorce, and should not exonerate the murderer who kills his adulterous wife or her accomplice.
“We demand the abolition of the punishment for adultery, because prosecutions of this character arise either from revengeful feelings or from litigiousness.”
Justice demands that with this facilitation of divorce, as advocated in the French scheme of marriage reform, there should be associated increased security for the care of the dependent wife and children after divorce. In this connexion, conjugal responsibility is merely a part of sexual responsibility in general. If two independent, free individuals have sexual relations one with the other, in or out of marriage, they thereby both undertake in respect of their own persons and of all possible offspring, the duty and the responsibility which are the outcome of a natural instinctive feeling, namely, “the sense of sexual responsibility.” This must dominate the entire sexual life of every human being, as a categorical imperative. In this is to be found the necessary ethical counterpoise to the activity of boundless sexual egoism.
For the love of the future and its social regulation, the three following conditions appear to me to be determinative; they form a part also of the French programme of marriage reform:
1. Equal rights, equal duties, equal responsibilities on the part of husband and wife.